Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Captain Ed

Though you won the Japanese did extremely well. You have to look at the numbers of like types, total numbers of ships and think of the ships firing on opposite numbers as per doctrine.

This line up actually looks somewhat like the battle between Oldendorfs slow BBs and the two doomed Japanese BBs in the Phillipines, the US BBs did not even get hit.

It is still a major British victory but the Japanese really took a pound of flesh. I'm not saying there is any problem with the result, I have seen more lop sided results in other AARs with similar correlations of force and this result is certainly within the realm of possibility. I am just staying the Brits got beat up pretty bad in the course of winning the fight.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

"The leadership numbers are not well done and the RAF is especially bad. But Tom, what major Japanese warship was sunk by the British Navy? What major amphibious landing accomplished and when were they done. "

Aside from Pearl Harbor the Japanese navy never sunk a US BB, does that mean they should not be able to?

The game is either about using the capabilities of the forces you have or it is not. I think there is a real argument for making a WitP type game with no China and no India, or a highly abstract version of them.

I don't buy either the play balance arguement or the "historically the (insert country) did not do X so in the game they should not be able to." argument either because the whole game is fun because you don't have to do what the actaul participents did.

It is very easy to imagine the RN playing a different role in the war, and if it does the RN in the game ought to reflect the real Royal Navy not some imagined force with similar names.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Captain Ed

Though you won the Japanese did extremely well. You have to look at the numbers of like types, total numbers of ships and think of the ships firing on opposite numbers as per doctrine.

This line up actually looks somewhat like the battle between Oldendorfs slow BBs and the two doomed Japanese BBs in the Phillipines, the US BBs did not even get hit.

It is still a major British victory but the Japanese really took a pound of flesh. I'm not saying there is any problem with the result, I have seen more lop sided results in other AARs with similar correlations of force and this result is certainly within the realm of possibility. I am just staying the Brits got beat up pretty bad in the course of winning the fight.

Anyone can see there is a problem with this result! ****, these kind of bloodlettings were rare during Nelson's day and earlier. This is utterly ridiculous and it just further highlights how leaders don't do anything as they should IRL but may or may not do something in the design. Who knows? All I know is this result is complete ****ing ****.

Anyone, please try to rationalize the above mentioned surface battle. A weaker force with superior speed ops to NOT use its speed advantage to withdraw, despite having a "better" leader most likely. Trust me, like most other combat models in this game, the surface combat model makes no sense whatsoever. I said it 3-4 years ago and I'm saying it now. Absolute childsplay. Why not just play "war" with a deck of cards?

Seriously, surface combat is sad. How many times do we see surface combat TFs break off when attacking an undefended transport TF, leaving 80%+ of the enemy unscathed after only a round or two and have loads of ammo left. But the same SC TF get's pummelled because he can't break off from an enemy BB TF with slower speed and has to endure round after round of silliness. The entire model is suspect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Trust me, like most other combat models in this game, the surface combat model makes no sense whatsoever. I said it 3-4 years ago and I'm saying it now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

"The leadership numbers are not well done and the RAF is especially bad. But Tom, what major Japanese warship was sunk by the British Navy? What major amphibious landing accomplished and when were they done. "

Aside from Pearl Harbor the Japanese navy never sunk a US BB, does that mean they should not be able to?

The game is either about using the capabilities of the forces you have or it is not. I think there is a real argument for making a WitP type game with no China and no India, or a highly abstract version of them.

I don't buy either the play balance arguement or the "historically the (insert country) did not do X so in the game they should not be able to." argument either because the whole game is fun because you don't have to do what the actaul participents did.

It is very easy to imagine the RN playing a different role in the war, and if it does the RN in the game ought to reflect the real Royal Navy not some imagined force with similar names.

quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Trust me, like most other combat models in this game, the surface combat model makes no sense whatsoever. I said it 3-4 years ago and I'm saying it now.

What combat model in this game make sense?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Trust me, like most other combat models in this game, the surface combat model makes no sense whatsoever. I said it 3-4 years ago and I'm saying it now.

What combat model in this game make sense?

Uh, well, there's the, uh...., um, and the um...

Actually possibly the atoll attack model.

quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Trust me, like most other combat models in this game, the surface combat model makes no sense whatsoever. I said it 3-4 years ago and I'm saying it now.

What combat model in this game make sense?

Uh, well, there's the, uh...., um, and the um...

Actually possibly the atoll attack model.

As long as you have nit run a bunch of naval bombardment in a short period of time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sneer

Why do we play this game if we find combat models highly inadequate ????
intresting isn't it

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


Hopefully through constant playtesting the devs will finally realize the error of their ways on many issues and alter the models to more adequately reflect just what they are trying to model (like ASW).

quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


Hopefully through constant playtesting the devs will finally realize the error of their ways on many issues and alter the models to more adequately reflect just what they are trying to model (like ASW).

Ron is either an eternal optomistic or we can make a fortune out of what he is drinking.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

I think that, in general, people should be wary of concluding that the naval combat model is broken because of various seemingly weird results. In real life there were "weird" results all the time in naval combat. At least that is the way it seems to me. There are so many factors that predicting a result is difficult to say the least.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


I think this has become a moral issue. Integrity is beginning to be questioned. And it is not mine that is under the looking glass...I don't sell recycled beer...know what I mean?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

"The leadership numbers are not well done and the RAF is especially bad. But Tom, what major Japanese warship was sunk by the British Navy? What major amphibious landing accomplished and when were they done. "

Aside from Pearl Harbor the Japanese navy never sunk a US BB, does that mean they should not be able to?

The game is either about using the capabilities of the forces you have or it is not. I think there is a real argument for making a WitP type game with no China and no India, or a highly abstract version of them.

I don't buy either the play balance arguement or the "historically the (insert country) did not do X so in the game they should not be able to." argument either because the whole game is fun because you don't have to do what the actaul participents did.

It is very easy to imagine the RN playing a different role in the war, and if it does the RN in the game ought to reflect the real Royal Navy not some imagined force with similar names.

It may be true that the British didn't do much in Burma (both Army and Navy) until late in the war but that does not reflect on the non-aggressiveness or ability of the British Generals and Admirals in the Southeast Asia command but rather, I think, the POLITICAL leadership of the British which were hell bent on defeating Germany first. The British once proposed to the US to fight defensively against Japan until Germany was defeated but the Americans balked when the British plans didn't even start offensive operations against Japan until 1946.

quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


I think this has become a moral issue. Integrity is beginning to be questioned. And it is not mine that is under the looking glass...I don't sell recycled beer...know what I mean?

Your integrity is definitely not in question. Your ability to constantly play this game while exposing all the bug is awe-inspiring.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

Re the RN and RAF the number and quality (stats) of leaders is pitifull but its not a game breaker. Again the forces covering the Bay of Bengal were also covering the Gulf down to the Cape and the RN especially didnt have any replacements and was therefore incredibly sensitive to losses so I just view the poor ratings especially aggression as sop sort of Admiralty oversight modifier !!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

quote:

Re the RN and RAF the number and quality (stats) of leaders is pitifull but its not a game breaker. Again the forces covering the Bay of Bengal were also covering the Gulf down to the Cape and the RN especially didnt have any replacements and was therefore incredibly sensitive to losses so I just view the poor ratings especially aggression as sop sort of Admiralty oversight modifier !!!

- Andy Mac

But if this is true it is really bad design. Personally I am very aware of the fact that my Royal Navy ships are gone for good when lost Vs. US Navy ships returning later in game. The problem with giving poor ratings is that it encourages the Japanese to attack the British, and it weakens any British defense if they are attacked.

When your designing a game you don't make a highly skilled navy unskilled to make it less agressive, you penalize agression in some way. Lots of options exist for that, including programming the game so that the Royal Navy cannot leave the Bay of Bengal or putting higher vicotry point values on British ships.

Switching topics to Ron's comments: I agree that there are big problems with the surface combat model, and it is likely as broken as the air combat model. But I don't agree that a battle like this is outside the realm of possibility. Imagine this as a version of the short range action off Guadalcanal that sunk a number of American and Japanese ships, or as something similar to what Oldendorfs battle line did. It is not hard to find ships either getting murdered or pounding the crap out of eachother. Even in the action between South Dakota and Haruna? (maybe it was Hiei or Kirishima I forget) South Dakota took a great many hits before Washington blew the crap out of the Japanese.

The naval combat model falls down in the ways Ron suggests, ships not firing when they should have, ships that cause the engagement being suprised, and especially in actions where surface ships are fighting merchant shipping where the model is an abject failure. But this battle is something that could have happened and in fact battles like it did happen with similar results.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

quote:

Re the RN and RAF the number and quality (stats) of leaders is pitifull but its not a game breaker. Again the forces covering the Bay of Bengal were also covering the Gulf down to the Cape and the RN especially didnt have any replacements and was therefore incredibly sensitive to losses so I just view the poor ratings especially aggression as sop sort of Admiralty oversight modifier !!!

- Andy Mac

But if this is true it is really bad design. Personally I am very aware of the fact that my Royal Navy ships are gone for good when lost Vs. US Navy ships returning later in game. The problem with giving poor ratings is that it encourages the Japanese to attack the British, and it weakens any British defense if they are attacked.

When your designing a game you don't make a highly skilled navy unskilled to make it less agressive, you penalize agression in some way. Lots of options exist for that, including programming the game so that the Royal Navy cannot leave the Bay of Bengal or putting higher vicotry point values on British ships.